4 ms·

The fact that you look at this banner- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israel-banner-unfurled-outside-parliament/ https://www.telegraph.c

The fact that you look at this banner- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israel-banner-unfurled-outside-parliament/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israe... .. And instantly know what it's about, pretty much rests the case.

drooby 2y ago
Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition. It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria. That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed. Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..
- defrost 2y ago
  There's no shortage of material in print calling for the destruction of Gaza, the non personhood of Palestinians, etc. from Israel ministers and commentators from before the October attacks by Hamas. You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2325804 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...
- calmbonsai 2y ago
  Ironically, I think the closest historical context is the British military in east Africa (roughly what is now Kenya) to the Kikuyu in the late 1880s.
- orwin 2y ago
  They destroy or steal art and books each time they invade. The places with the most Palestinian pre-israel books and art are Israelian archives, where only Israeli historians have access if the government authorize them (i.e if they're not critical of the current politics).
  - martin8412 2y ago
    Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin. The modern usage of Palestinian didn't come into broad usage until after the six day war.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin. Not the 97 percent who were non-Jewish. Who were a diverse group of folks, including a significant minority (20 percent or more seems a good estimate) whose recent ancestors were non-indigenous migrants in the latter (but still pre-Aliyah) stages of the Ottoman Empire. Including a good chunk from Egypt and other places nearby, as well as from far-off places like Bosnia, Circassia etc. The long-term resident (i.e. "indigeous") component in turn had also steadily mixed with other populations over time. DNA evidence does suggest that a good chunk of their ancestry pool would probably have been classed as Jewish/Israelite way back when, before converting to Christianity and other religions before the Islamic conquest. A fact which the myth-making industry in modern Israel painfully ignores. In sum they make for a complex group with a mix of influences. To say that they were "mostly of Jewish origin" smells strongly of overstretch. And in any case they definitely were not "Jewish" by the time the Nakba rolled around. So what this (or footnotes about the origin of the term Palestinian) has to do with the Israeli government's continuing to hoard their stolen ("abandoned") posessions is unclear.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  >Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. Jews were not a protected group in the 30's/40's, so...?
- okokhacker 2y ago
  Yes, let’s thoroughly review the facts and posit while bombs are being dropped. Speaking of courts, didn’t the ICC have something to say about this?
  - drooby 2y ago
    We don’t need to label a conflict as genocide to recognize the urgency of ending it. Armed conflicts, regardless of labels, demand immediate efforts to stop the violence and protect civilians. The focus should be on saving lives, not semantics. Ending this conflict should start with demanding that Hamas abandon its illegitimate and destructive aims. They must lay down their weapons, release all hostages, and dismantle their oppressive regime. Hamas’s actions and ideology stand in the way of peace for both Palestinian and Israeli civilians
- esalman 2y ago
  What exactly are we being too quick to judge?
hirvi74 2y ago
[flagged]
- _yb2s 2y ago
  The criticism in the Wikipedia you linked lists various cases where unethical things were happening, and the article explains how the other employees and the organization took apparently strong corrective action to deal with them. That hardly seems like something worth mentioning to claim they have no right to call out genocide. While I am in no way condoning the events that were listed, it is inappropriate to even bring that up in this context.
  - hirvi74 2y ago
    > That hardly seems like something worth mentioning to claim they have no right to call out genocide. I made no mention of genocide. The MSF is free to call out genocide as they please.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      No, that is what it means when a person or organization raises a concern and you reply like you did- that they have no right to raise the concern because you’re implying they are just as guilty.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Have MSF bombed anybody lately?
  - hirvi74 2y ago
    Did you see any bombings in the link I posted?
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      No - that's my point. You're seriously comparing the allegations of sexual misconduct by MSF employees with the bombing of Gaza and killing of 45K people?
tim333 2y ago
The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.

drooby 2y ago

Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition. It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria. That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed. Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..

defrost 2y ago
There's no shortage of material in print calling for the destruction of Gaza, the non personhood of Palestinians, etc. from Israel ministers and commentators from before the October attacks by Hamas. You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2325804 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...
calmbonsai 2y ago
Ironically, I think the closest historical context is the British military in east Africa (roughly what is now Kenya) to the Kikuyu in the late 1880s.
orwin 2y ago
They destroy or steal art and books each time they invade. The places with the most Palestinian pre-israel books and art are Israelian archives, where only Israeli historians have access if the government authorize them (i.e if they're not critical of the current politics).
- martin8412 2y ago
  Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin. The modern usage of Palestinian didn't come into broad usage until after the six day war.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin. Not the 97 percent who were non-Jewish. Who were a diverse group of folks, including a significant minority (20 percent or more seems a good estimate) whose recent ancestors were non-indigenous migrants in the latter (but still pre-Aliyah) stages of the Ottoman Empire. Including a good chunk from Egypt and other places nearby, as well as from far-off places like Bosnia, Circassia etc. The long-term resident (i.e. "indigeous") component in turn had also steadily mixed with other populations over time. DNA evidence does suggest that a good chunk of their ancestry pool would probably have been classed as Jewish/Israelite way back when, before converting to Christianity and other religions before the Islamic conquest. A fact which the myth-making industry in modern Israel painfully ignores. In sum they make for a complex group with a mix of influences. To say that they were "mostly of Jewish origin" smells strongly of overstretch. And in any case they definitely were not "Jewish" by the time the Nakba rolled around. So what this (or footnotes about the origin of the term Palestinian) has to do with the Israeli government's continuing to hoard their stolen ("abandoned") posessions is unclear.
123yawaworht456 2y ago
>Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. Jews were not a protected group in the 30's/40's, so...?
okokhacker 2y ago
Yes, let’s thoroughly review the facts and posit while bombs are being dropped. Speaking of courts, didn’t the ICC have something to say about this?
- drooby 2y ago
  We don’t need to label a conflict as genocide to recognize the urgency of ending it. Armed conflicts, regardless of labels, demand immediate efforts to stop the violence and protect civilians. The focus should be on saving lives, not semantics. Ending this conflict should start with demanding that Hamas abandon its illegitimate and destructive aims. They must lay down their weapons, release all hostages, and dismantle their oppressive regime. Hamas’s actions and ideology stand in the way of peace for both Palestinian and Israeli civilians
esalman 2y ago
What exactly are we being too quick to judge?

hirvi74 2y ago

[flagged]

_yb2s 2y ago
The criticism in the Wikipedia you linked lists various cases where unethical things were happening, and the article explains how the other employees and the organization took apparently strong corrective action to deal with them. That hardly seems like something worth mentioning to claim they have no right to call out genocide. While I am in no way condoning the events that were listed, it is inappropriate to even bring that up in this context.
- hirvi74 2y ago
  > That hardly seems like something worth mentioning to claim they have no right to call out genocide. I made no mention of genocide. The MSF is free to call out genocide as they please.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    No, that is what it means when a person or organization raises a concern and you reply like you did- that they have no right to raise the concern because you’re implying they are just as guilty.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Have MSF bombed anybody lately?
- hirvi74 2y ago
  Did you see any bombings in the link I posted?
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    No - that's my point. You're seriously comparing the allegations of sexual misconduct by MSF employees with the bombing of Gaza and killing of 45K people?

tim333 2y ago

The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.